What are we?

atanu · Aug 4, 2015

"What we are – what each of us is, what you are, what I am – is approximately a hundred trillion little cellular robots. That’s what we are made of. No other ingredients at all.” Daniel Dennet.

"Consciousness is just a bunch of tricks in the brain” Daniel Dennet

(I wonder how Daniel knows beyond the tricks).

“The problem is free will is just a non-starter, philosophically and scientifically. Unlike many other illusions, there is no way you can describe the universe so as to make sense of this notion of free will.” Sam Harris

(Sam Harris seems to be making an objective and free statement).

“I want to sit down to write, but then I want something else – to exercise, perhaps. Which impulse will win? […] What finally causes the balance to swing? I cannot know subjectively – but I can be sure that electrochemical events in my brain decide the matter. […] Therefore, I can take no credit for the fact that I got to the end of this paragraph.” Sam Harris, Free Will and the Reality of Love, 2013

(OMG. He is sure that electrochemical events will decide the matter. Yet it seems that electrochemical events in Sam's little brain have decided in favour of making Sam so sure.

Now, I am sure that at least some Sam supporter/s will be angry at me, impelled by electrochemical events in their small brains).
...........
So. Our choices and decisions, can only be produced by some piece of machinery following physical laws. One's mind must be reducible to these particle interactions occurring within one's brain. Hence mind can be nothing but the brain, clearly defined, firmly located, and imprisoned as long as the brain lives.

I cannot however understand two things in this scheme.

1. How these greats know beyond the brain's tricks? Is Dennet then a God that he somehow escaped the tricks and came to know the truth objectively?

(Buddha and Shankara also taught us that the mind-senses play trickery with us. But they taught that to know the trickery as trickery one has to obtain support of the unborn mind that remains timelessly undefiled by its objects.)

2. If the physical brain is the source of our "Will-Consciousness", then why it allows itself to die? It can will "I will to live on". Why it dies so timidly (or violently) and fails to exhibit signs of consciousness when the life breath leaves a body?

(The alternative understanding is this. The body is not the "I" consciousness, which is immortal and transcends all forms).

So then. This is a board sort of thing. All are invited to fill the infinite board with their opinions and thoughts.

LuisDantas · Aug 4, 2015

atanu said:
I cannot however understand two things in this scheme.

1. How these greats know beyond the brain's tricks? Is Dennet then a God that he somehow escaped the tricks and came to know the truth objectively?

Why, of course not. Why would you even ask?

(Buddha and Shankara also taught us that the mind-senses play trickery with us. But they taught that to know the trickery as trickery one has to obtain support of the unborn mind that remains timelessly undefiled by its objects.)

There is a danger on using words without realizing them. How many people can even understand what an unborn mind is, let alone whether the concept is correctly translated and understood in the proper context?

Personally, I think it is preferable to avoid resorting to such ambitious yet slippery concepts altogether.

2. If the physical brain is the source of our "Will-Consciousness", then why it allows itself to die?

To ask why it allows that is to imply that it has a choice. It rather obviously lacks such a choice.

It can will "I will to live on". Why it dies so timidly (or violently) and fails to exhibit signs of consciousness when the life breath leaves a body?

Because death is a part of reality? I'm really not sure what you mean to ask here.

(The alternative understanding is this. The body is not the "I" consciousness, which is immortal and transcends all forms).

So then. This is a board sort of thing. All are invited to fill the infinite board with their opinions and thoughts.

Why do you expect immortality to be a thing? All the available evidence points against that.

atanu · Aug 4, 2015

LuisDantas said:
Why, of course not. Why would you even ask?

There is a danger on using words without realizing them. How many people can even understand what an unborn mind is, let alone whether the concept is correctly translated and understood in the proper context?

Personally, I think it is preferable to avoid resorting to such ambitious yet slippery concepts altogether.

To ask why it allows that is to imply that it has a choice. It rather obviously lacks such a choice.

Because death is a part of reality? I'm really not sure what you mean to ask here.

Why do you expect immortality to be a thing? All the available evidence points against that.

Luis. No answer or or counter query required. I just wished for different opinions.

LuisDantas · Aug 5, 2015

So, you are basically asking whether we believe in souls of some kind?

atanu · Aug 5, 2015

I have noted my opinion. I have invited whoever wishes to note their understanding or opinion along with the reasons, if feasible.

atanu · Aug 5, 2015

To this board, I add the view of J. B. S. Haldane, a Marxist-Atheist, a recipient of Darwin and Darwin Wallace medals, a noted evolutionist, propounder of 'Primordial Soup' theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."[61]

Haldane, J.B.S., Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.

LuisDantas · Aug 5, 2015

Uh... that Haldane quote makes no sense whatsoever.

psychoslice · Aug 5, 2015

We are what we are, you can take your lick, either you are the mind body organism, or you are your true Source, pure Consciousness, actually you are both at the same time, and all is One, its just your perception that divides you into two, but in reality you are One,.

atanu · Aug 5, 2015

LuisDantas said:
Uh... that Haldane quote makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure Luis.

Curious George · Aug 5, 2015

LuisDantas said:
Uh... that Haldane quote makes no sense whatsoever.

How does that not make sense?

atanu · Aug 5, 2015

Curious George said:
How does that not make sense?

Yeah. Luis has a point, IMO. Haldane, an atheist, a Marxist, a great teacher of the science of evolution, a recipient of Darwin medal, a recipient of Darwin Wallace medal, a propounder of Primordial Soup theory --- and yet such foolishness? Such a statement?

Curious George · Aug 5, 2015

atanu said:
Yeah. Luis has a point, IMO. Haldane, an atheist, a Marxist, a great teacher of the science of evolution, a recipient of Darwin medal, a recipient of Darwin Wallace medal, a propounder of Primordial Soup theory --- and yet such foolishness? Such a statement?

Still do not follow, and I am not sure how it is foolish?

LuisDantas · Aug 5, 2015

@Curious George

atanu said:
Yeah. Luis has a point, IMO. Haldane, an atheist, a Marxist, a great teacher of the science of evolution, a recipient of Darwin medal, a recipient of Darwin Wallace medal, a propounder of Primordial Soup theory --- and yet such foolishness? Such a statement?

Don't oversell it, Atanu. I don't know what makes him claim such a thing as that his brain is not composed of atoms, but your emphasis on his "true atheistic credentials" is telling.

BSM1 · Aug 5, 2015

atanu said:
"What we are – what each of us is, what you are, what I am – is approximately a hundred trillion little cellular robots. That’s what we are made of. No other ingredients at all.” Daniel Dennet.

"Consciousness is just a bunch of tricks in the brain” Daniel Dennet

(I wonder how Daniel knows beyond the tricks).

“The problem is free will is just a non-starter, philosophically and scientifically. Unlike many other illusions, there is no way you can describe the universe so as to make sense of this notion of free will.” Sam Harris

(Sam Harris seems to be making an objective and free statement).

“I want to sit down to write, but then I want something else – to exercise, perhaps. Which impulse will win? […] What finally causes the balance to swing? I cannot know subjectively – but I can be sure that electrochemical events in my brain decide the matter. […] Therefore, I can take no credit for the fact that I got to the end of this paragraph.” Sam Harris, Free Will and the Reality of Love, 2013

(OMG. He is sure that electrochemical events will decide the matter. Yet it seems that electrochemical events in Sam's little brain have decided in favour of making Sam so sure.

Now, I am sure that at least some Sam supporter/s will be angry at me, impelled by electrochemical events in their small brains).
...........
So. Our choices and decisions, can only be produced by some piece of machinery following physical laws. One's mind must be reducible to these particle interactions occurring within one's brain. Hence mind can be nothing but the brain, clearly defined, firmly located, and imprisoned as long as the brain lives.

I cannot however understand two things in this scheme.

1. How these greats know beyond the brain's tricks? Is Dennet then a God that he somehow escaped the tricks and came to know the truth objectively?

(Buddha and Shankara also taught us that the mind-senses play trickery with us. But they taught that to know the trickery as trickery one has to obtain support of the unborn mind that remains timelessly undefiled by its objects.)

2. If the physical brain is the source of our "Will-Consciousness", then why it allows itself to die? It can will "I will to live on". Why it dies so timidly (or violently) and fails to exhibit signs of consciousness when the life breath leaves a body?

(The alternative understanding is this. The body is not the "I" consciousness, which is immortal and transcends all forms).

So then. This is a board sort of thing. All are invited to fill the infinite board with their opinions and thoughts.

Not saying these guys are wrong or right (my choice) but if they are why bother getting up in the morning?

atanu · Aug 5, 2015

LuisDantas said:
@Curious George

Don't oversell it, Atanu. I don't know what makes him claim such a thing as that his brain is not composed of atoms, but your emphasis on his "true atheistic credentials" is telling.

First. I do not relish your strong personal references. I wish that you will desist from such comments.

Second. Haldane is correct, from my perspective. All forms-names are empty.

atanu · Aug 5, 2015

Curious George said:
Still do not follow, and I am not sure how it is foolish?

It is not foolish, in my opinion.

LuisDantas · Aug 5, 2015

atanu said:
First. I do not relish your strong personal references. I wish that you will desist from such comments.

I will have to keep disappointing you, then. Repeatedly, I expect.

Unless you change your mind, of course.

Second. Haldane is correct, from my perspective. All forms-names are empty.

If you say so.

Banjankri · Aug 5, 2015

atanu said:
2. If the physical brain is the source of our "Will-Consciousness", then why it allows itself to die? It can will "I will to live on"

That would be a good question if it would be the other way around. Precisely because the physical brain is the source of "will-consciousness", we die, when this physical structure collapses.

atanu said:
"Consciousness is just a bunch of tricks in the brain” Daniel Dennet

"Tricks" remain undefined here.

atanu said:
Therefore, I can take no credit for the fact that I got to the end of this paragraph.

What is this "I"?

atanu said:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

If there is no reason to suppose his beliefs are true, this also applies to his statement that it is "unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter". He refuted his own argument. How the hell did this quote became known?

atanu · Aug 5, 2015

atanu · Aug 5, 2015

In the above video Kaku defines self awareness as the ability to model self along with the whole. He emphatically states that robots are not self aware. In later videos he talks about very exciting developments. Worth seeing all of them.

What are we?

Member

Aura of atheification

Member

Aura of atheification

Member

Member

Aura of atheification

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Aura of atheification

What? Me worry?

Member

Member

Aura of atheification

Active Member

Member

Member